37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 234067 |
Time | |
Date | 199301 |
Day | Mon |
Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : sps |
State Reference | TX |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tower : sps |
Operator | general aviation : corporate |
Make Model Name | Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng |
Navigation In Use | Other Other |
Flight Phase | descent : approach |
Route In Use | approach : visual |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | Other |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 16646 flight time type : 715 |
ASRS Report | 234067 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | Other |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : instrument |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : published procedure non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation |
Independent Detector | other controllera |
Resolutory Action | none taken : insufficient time |
Consequence | Other |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Situations | |
Airport | procedure or policy : unspecified |
Narrative:
Upon arriving in the wichita falls area, we received the ATIS information which indicated that the wind was favoring runways 15. No reference was made on the ATIS to a special VFR procedure for runway 17, nor was there any information regarding military activity on runways 15 left and right. We were cleared to descend to 8000 ft and at approximately 5-10 mi west of the sps VOR, we were cleared to 6000 ft. The sheppard approach controller advised that the landing runway was 17. In view of the fact that we had not cancelled IFR at the time, we requested runway 15R. Sheppard then advised they were unable to approve runway 15R and asked us if we were going to make the crossing restriction altitude of 2300 ft at the sps VOR. This is the first time we had any knowledge of any restriction. We confirmed this clearance and started an immediate descent to 2300 ft to comply with his request. During this descent, sheppard asked if we were familiar with the runway 17 procedure. We stated that we were not familiar with the procedure. Sheppard responded by asking us to take up a heading of 100 degrees after the VOR. We complied with his request and could see the airport visually, and it became apparent to us that if we did not cancel IFR, we would overrun the airport at 2300 ft. As we prepared to turn final for 17, sheppard further instructed us not to cross over any txwys, ramp areas or runways. His instructions were so late that it required a bank angle below 500 ft that was steeper than normal to comply. May I suggest that this special VFR procedure requiring a continuous turning final approach be published so that pilots can be prepared to execute this maneuver in a fairly routine fashion. A VFR procedures chart, such as the one used at most airports -- los angeles, washington national, etc -- would be most helpful. Further, a note on the VFR approach chart indicating heavy military activity on runways 15/33 would also alert pilots to the intensity of the traffic. We had no idea that civilian aircraft are generally restr to using runways 17/35 only. I bring this to your attention in the hopes that other pilots visiting wichita falls, tx, who are not familiar with the local conditions can be prepared. Further, until such time as the information is published, I would suggest that a brief message be put on the ATIS. It would also have been very helpful on our particular flight, once we had advised the controller that we were not familiar with the VFR procedure, if he would have given us a full, brief description of the procedure rather than just giving us a heading and altitude to fly.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: CPR MLG PLT HAD TROUBLE FIGURING OUT HOW TO FLY THE PATTERN AT SPS BECAUSE OF RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON CIVIL ACFT THERE.
Narrative: UPON ARRIVING IN THE WICHITA FALLS AREA, WE RECEIVED THE ATIS INFO WHICH INDICATED THAT THE WIND WAS FAVORING RWYS 15. NO REF WAS MADE ON THE ATIS TO A SPECIAL VFR PROC FOR RWY 17, NOR WAS THERE ANY INFO REGARDING MIL ACTIVITY ON RWYS 15 L AND R. WE WERE CLRED TO DSND TO 8000 FT AND AT APPROX 5-10 MI W OF THE SPS VOR, WE WERE CLRED TO 6000 FT. THE SHEPPARD APCH CTLR ADVISED THAT THE LNDG RWY WAS 17. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT WE HAD NOT CANCELLED IFR AT THE TIME, WE REQUESTED RWY 15R. SHEPPARD THEN ADVISED THEY WERE UNABLE TO APPROVE RWY 15R AND ASKED US IF WE WERE GOING TO MAKE THE XING RESTRICTION ALT OF 2300 FT AT THE SPS VOR. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF ANY RESTRICTION. WE CONFIRMED THIS CLRNC AND STARTED AN IMMEDIATE DSCNT TO 2300 FT TO COMPLY WITH HIS REQUEST. DURING THIS DSCNT, SHEPPARD ASKED IF WE WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE RWY 17 PROC. WE STATED THAT WE WERE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE PROC. SHEPPARD RESPONDED BY ASKING US TO TAKE UP A HDG OF 100 DEGS AFTER THE VOR. WE COMPLIED WITH HIS REQUEST AND COULD SEE THE ARPT VISUALLY, AND IT BECAME APPARENT TO US THAT IF WE DID NOT CANCEL IFR, WE WOULD OVERRUN THE ARPT AT 2300 FT. AS WE PREPARED TO TURN FINAL FOR 17, SHEPPARD FURTHER INSTRUCTED US NOT TO CROSS OVER ANY TXWYS, RAMP AREAS OR RWYS. HIS INSTRUCTIONS WERE SO LATE THAT IT REQUIRED A BANK ANGLE BELOW 500 FT THAT WAS STEEPER THAN NORMAL TO COMPLY. MAY I SUGGEST THAT THIS SPECIAL VFR PROC REQUIRING A CONTINUOUS TURNING FINAL APCH BE PUBLISHED SO THAT PLTS CAN BE PREPARED TO EXECUTE THIS MANEUVER IN A FAIRLY ROUTINE FASHION. A VFR PROCS CHART, SUCH AS THE ONE USED AT MOST ARPTS -- LOS ANGELES, WASHINGTON NATIONAL, ETC -- WOULD BE MOST HELPFUL. FURTHER, A NOTE ON THE VFR APCH CHART INDICATING HVY MIL ACTIVITY ON RWYS 15/33 WOULD ALSO ALERT PLTS TO THE INTENSITY OF THE TFC. WE HAD NO IDEA THAT CIVILIAN ACFT ARE GENERALLY RESTR TO USING RWYS 17/35 ONLY. I BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTN IN THE HOPES THAT OTHER PLTS VISITING WICHITA FALLS, TX, WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE LCL CONDITIONS CAN BE PREPARED. FURTHER, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE INFO IS PUBLISHED, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT A BRIEF MESSAGE BE PUT ON THE ATIS. IT WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL ON OUR PARTICULAR FLT, ONCE WE HAD ADVISED THE CTLR THAT WE WERE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE VFR PROC, IF HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN US A FULL, BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROC RATHER THAN JUST GIVING US A HDG AND ALT TO FLY.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.